Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context that no candidate is currently active and it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, plus clarifies it 'falls back to nothing' because it is a full working router. However, it doesn't explain what 'routing improvements' or 'outcome evidence' mean behaviorally, leaving some ambiguity about how routing might differ.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than necessary for the information conveyed. Key facts—beta version, identical to ask_pipeworx, currently no active candidate—are front-loaded, but the middle section about candidate routing improvements is dense and somewhat repetitive. A tighter version would be more effective without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a beta variant of a known sibling, the description provides essential context: its current state, purpose, parity with the stable router, and that it is fully functional. Since there is no output schema, the reference to 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx is important and helpful. The only gap is a clearer explanation of what 'routing improvements' mean in practice, but the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented, including aliases like q, text, input, query, and prompt. The description adds a small bonus by saying arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which helps agents familiar with the sibling. The schema itself is clear, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal router functionality, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements. However, it is somewhat verbose and the core 'answer questions via routing' function is implied rather than explicitly stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear context for when to choose it. It could be stronger by explicitly naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative when stable routing is preferred, but the experimental framing implies this.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.